On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
> It ultimatly does not make sense if you can choose one of several
> libraries (with different licenses) that can be dynamically linked
> against a program without recompiling it.
>
> For example, you distribute a program linked ag
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > This is all irrelevant. The issue is that you can't distribute GPL
> > binaries *linked against* GPL-incompatible libraries.
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> It's more complicated than that when dynamic linking
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 02:16:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Again, it is more complicated. What if you have both a free and binary-
> compatible proprietory version of the os? E.g., is a Windows program
> linked against the Windows DLLs if users can run it with wine? What
> about Linux bin
On 06 Sep 2004 02:54:00 +0200, Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
> >> Of course, in such simple cases, they can be thought of having given
> >> implicit permission to link ag
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
>> Of course, in such simple cases, they can be thought of having given
>> implicit permission to link against OpenSSL.
> There is no such thing as implicit permission in copyright la
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> >> If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
> >> an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this was not the intention of
> >> the GPL authors. If yo
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
> Of course, in such simple cases, they can be thought of having given
> implicit permission to link against OpenSSL.
There is no such thing as implicit permission in copyright law (or
even contract law). That only works for verbal agre
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 08:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Huh? Whether such a library is "normally distributed with the major
> > components of the operating system" isn't related to the existance of
> > emulation libraries.
>
> Well, if
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> They did. Solaris 9 reportedly comes with GNU tools (I can't check it
> myself because I don't have a machine running Solaris).
You can get gnu tools for solaris from http://www.sunfreeware.com
To my knowledge, gnu tools are not supp
Claus Färber wrote:
the author put it under the GPL because he *didn't* want it shipped
with software with restrictions like OpenSSL's.
I see: Someone releasing a program written in curl under the GPL does
not want it to be distributed along with an operating system that
includes the curl runt
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> For one thing, it's absolutely not possible to run the binary in
> such a way that openssl is not part of the process image.
You can use an alternative implementation (of libcurl *or* OpenSSL) that
offers the same ABI without pulling in OpenSSL.
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
>> an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this was not the intention of
>> the GPL authors. If you have to distribute the component with the GPL
>> software, this is a
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Huh? Whether such a library is "normally distributed with the major
> components of the operating system" isn't related to the existance of
> emulation libraries.
Well, if you have different choices even on a single operating system,
this is an
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> I find a decent smoke test for aggregation to be:
>>
>> Can I take these two packages on the same CD and split them apart
>> again, such that they are no longer aggregated, and still use them?
>
> This defini
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:03:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I find a decent smoke test for aggregation to be:
> >
> > Can I take these two packages on the same CD and split them apart
> > again, such that they are no longer aggregated, and still u
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I find a decent smoke test for aggregation to be:
>
> Can I take these two packages on the same CD and split them apart
> again, such that they are no longer aggregated, and still use them?
This definition suggests that all Emacs macros are derived fro
17 matches
Mail list logo
